That was my reaction, too. I think Archaeologist must have a random objection generator. It doesn't matter how basic and fundamental something is, he objects. He reminds me of this Groucho Marx song from the movie Horse Feathers:

Groucho Marx writes:

[Groucho]I don't know what they have to say,It makes no difference anyway,Whatever it is, I'm against it.No matter what it is or who commenced it,I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,But let's have one thing understood,Whatever it is, I'm against it.And even when you've changed it or condensed it,I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

[chorus]He's opposed to it.In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!

[Groucho]For months before my son was born,I used to yell from night to morn,Whatever it is, I'm against it.And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,I'm against it!

BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario

If you want to see the evidence you have to go to the actual peer-reviewed journal article, not the popular science reporting. Popular science reporters skip covering the evidence because it's really boring.

Science isn't done in newspapers, it's done in peer-reviewed journal articles. But, again - the proof of the notion that mitochondrial DNA is inherited matrilineally is that the ovum does not incorporate the mitochondria of the sperm during fertilization. Mitochondrial DNA must be matrilineal because the father's mitochondrial DNA is observed not to contribute to the zygote (we can watch fertilization happen under a microscope and know this to be true.)

to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years.

But we don't have 1 set of parents for all. We have one mitochondrial "Eve" 200,000 years ago, and one "Y-Adam" 100,000 years ago. And it takes 200,000 and 100,000 years because that's how long it took. It's like saying - "why does it take an hour to drive between Lincoln and Omaha"? Because that's how long it takes. That's how long the road is, that's the traffic conditions, that's the back-up caused by the construction along I-80.

i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

Just because you don't trust the dating doesn't mean that there is any finagling going on. The fact is that you can't possibly comprehend that there can be anything wrong with your book.

The point is that you are assuming Mitochondrial-Eve was the first Human woman. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of all living humans. Whether it was 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 years ago matters not. Mitochondral-Eves mother was also Common ancestor as was her mother and her mother.... The same goes for Y-Chromosome AdamExcept his line starts later

Ancestors Tale writes:

Second, Eve and Adam were not a couple. it would be a mojor coincidence if they ever met, and they could well have been separated by tens of thousands of years. As a subsidiary point, there are independent reasons to believe that Eve preceded Adam. Males are more variable in reproductive success than females: where some females have five times as many children as other females, the most successful males could have hundreds of times as many children as unsuccessful males. A male with alarge harumfinds it easy to be a universal ancestor. A female, since she is less likely to have a large family, needs a larger number of generations to achieve the same feat. And indeed, today's best 'molecular clock' estimates for their respective dates are about 140, 000 years ago for Eve and only about 60, 000 for Adam.

The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins, p 54

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The point is that you are assuming Mitochondrial-Eve was the first Human woman. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of all living humans.

Mitochondrial Eve is most certainly not the MRCA, she's the most recent common ancestor if you trace exclusively down the female line. Just as Y-Chromosome Adam is the most recent if you trace exclusively down the male line.

The MRCA is more recent than either of these.

(I think, from what you say later in your post, that you understand this; but I think it's an important misconception to clarify)

when christians present it, they dismiss or reject it without consideration but whenthey see the evidence for themselves, and as a result of their own work, they still reject it and make up stories to hide from the fact.

Could you explain how this is in any way supposed to be evidence that evos ignore?

You seem to be ignoring the time frame involved that directly contradicts the time frame of the bible.

i did read some of the paper and saw thatit was all assumption so i stopped reading it. i never trust the dates coming form secualr sources and if they really tried, they would have found that the dna stopped at about 6-10,000 years NOT 200,000. same for the adam side.

the evolutionary time frame is made up, fictitious, and not real. it doesn't contradict the Biblical record for it does not exisst except in the imaginations of evolutionists. even the archaeological table, the three age sytem, was fictitious and created arbitrarily without evidence or proof. it is wrong as well.

If you want to see the evidence you have to go to the actual peer-reviewed journal article

you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?

that is just a lousy system to use as evidence and proof. sorry but i will pass on taking those people's word for anything. that is a faulty system that needs to be scrapped.

i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.

you all have shown me that you do not want truth but want your alternatives. i am not going to force you to do anything, i may post from time to time but the idea of discussion is moot because the secualrists only want to hear what they want and they hide behind scientific generalities to make sure they avoid the truth.

the truth is secular science and evolution are wrong. let me know when you want to hear the truth.

i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.

I think what people are looking for is the evidence that would support your claims. For example, in an earlier message you said this:

archaeologist writes:

you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?

What people would like to know is how you know that "scientists do not replicate experiments?" How were you able to discover that scientists "do not read the reports or papers sent them" for peer review. Where is your evidence that the peer review system is "easily manipulated, biased and prejudiced." And how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between science's outstanding record of success and these profound failures.

This issue of failing to support your claims is a common problem in your messages. You're fairly clear about what you believe but not very good at providing the evidence and rationale that might convince people that they should believe as you do. Hotjer provided evidence that the original paper is thickly supported by references, which is not consistent with your claims. A valid rebuttal would consist of counter-evidence and argument, but you didn't do that. You instead engaged in ad hominem by accusing Hotjer of "not knowing your own systems or just ignoring the many articles exposing the problems," and of not wanting the truth.

Maybe God is all-knowing, but here on Earth we mere mortals must support our claims with evidence and rational argument.